Death Penalty: Moral and Judicial Debate under the

Philippine Government
11/13/2012
40 Comments

In the long history of the Philippines, the death penalty was known and accepted fact.
The code of Kalantiao, the oldest recorded body of laws of our early ancestors showed
the strictness under the barangay that existed and based their moral acceptance of
right and wrong. For example, anyone caught stealing would be penalized by suffering
the loss of finger.

The graver the theft, the more fingers were cut and if the theft was very grave, the
hands was chopped off, therefore it is understandable that even in the Early periods of
our history there are certain punishment for a offense, that even the code of Kalantiao
imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is considered as heinous crime.

Today, the State itself has different punishment opposite to its offence, our legislators
implement and pass a Bill that will sentenced a grave offender of crime, one of it is the
Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act which gathers many controversies on
its implementation, according to this act a criminal who has been proven guilty to a
heinous crime with the proper due process of law will be executed.

An eye for an eye does not mean vengeance, for the Almighty God himself said,
vengeance is mine and by this he meant he would met justice in accordance with his
mysterious way through the Ten Commandments from which morals laws were taken.
Precisely no one has the right to deprive another person of his life, degrade him or her
to the status of an animal, or abuse and debase a person to the extent of destroying
forever his or her dignity. But how about the victims? Those who were murdered and
raped, those children who were abduct for ramson and then killed, for those school kids
and teenagers who buys drugs and in the process slowly or make them criminals, rapist
and murderers while the pushers enrich themselves.

The death penalty itself on the other hand could strike fear in the minds of those
criminals and make them think twice before committing any act of violence. That the
Capital punishment may act as an instrument with which the righteous may be guarded
against the offender. The enforcement of Capital Punishment under proper
circumstances places a high value on human life and upholds dignity of man, than
making him stop to the level of criminals by lashing out at them with similar brutality in
the guise of justice.

In the Philippines where there is no clean and fair justice system, there is no doubt that
if ever the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act is reimposed there are many
Filipino who will lose their right to life and many will be sentenced with death penalty
and die as it is said those who have less in life, have less in law, that the death penalty
will be biased to the poor ones who could be easily accused by the rich one or those
who were set up to be pointed out as the criminal. As long as bail is pegged on wealth
and the enforcement of law is swayed by money, position and possessions, the death
penalty will be a sword of Damocles over the head of the impoverished and the weak.

We have not repented and turned from our evil ways, we continue to miss the mark.
And so we become desperate and hope to eradicate crime by wasting or executing the
sinner, not the sin.

Hypotheses

This study tested well the hypothesis that there are significant, relevant and
argumentative concepts and ideas involving the analysis of death penalty under the
Philippine Government. The study is an analysis of the extent of the abolishment of
death penalty: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government specifically
it sought answer to the following questions:
1. 1 Do death penalty control and decrease the crime rate in
the Philippines?
2. What are the reasons why death penalty was abolished?
3. What will be the possible psychological effect of death penalty to the criminals
that was in jail?
4. What is the possible role of the church?

Rationale and Limitation of the Study

The study was limited to the analysis of the abolishment of the Republic Act No. 7659
or the Death Penalty Act: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government.
The study does not include other phrases such as how, where, and what are the
methods nor the process in death penalty.

The Capital Punishment

The expression Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty is ambiguous, referring to a
species of acts, acts of executing someone for conduct judge to be criminal. It often
refers to a certain kind of social institution. The institution of capital punishment is one
pattern of punishment that forms part of our legal system in many, but not all,
societies. It involves certain roles like those of the executioner and the criminal and
certain rules such as the rule that only person condemned to death by courts is to be
executed. In most society, the punishment for murder is execution. In the Philippines
we have the same act, the R.A. no. 7659 or the death penalty act.

Two Theories on Death Penalty

Classical theory (on which our Revised Penal Code is based) regards crime as the
product of human free will, and the purpose of penalty as retribution. Man is held
accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains unimpaired. For penal
purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself, and a direct
proportion is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the
offense. Hence, the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Positivist theory, on the other hand, views human free will as a myth or at least a
debatable matter. According to it, man is subdued to occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which contrains him to do wrong contrary to his free will. For this
reason, man as a moral being is given primacy over deed, and crime is viewed as a social
phenomenon that can't be checked by retributive transactions, but by measures
designed, cure or educate the criminal.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS

CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL
LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof,
states "Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.

WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just,
civilized and ordered society;
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in
the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the
nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the
same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability
to maintain peace and order in the country;

WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need
to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling
reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;

Now, therefore,
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of
the State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt
such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which
are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just
and humane society; Sec. 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or
adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere,
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed
100,000 pesos."

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at

least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to
death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. 1 With treachery, taking advantage to superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel,
derailment of assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles,
or with use of any means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6 With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Sec.
11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. 1 By using force or intimidation.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3 When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on

the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:
1. 1 When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
7 When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation." Sec. 3. Importation of
Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited
drug. Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the
Death Penalty Cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must
be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of
age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which
cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en
banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation
of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The
transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter."
Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence shall
not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after
delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death
sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40.

In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be
forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for
possible exercise of the pardoning power."

ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The classical and contemporary literature on the subject of capital punishment provides
several very plausible arguments designed to prove that the act of executing a person
for conduct judge to be criminal is sometimes right.

Prevention

Capital punishment is sometimes morally justified as a means of preventing the

criminal from committing additional crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown
himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to murder or rape once
is very likely to act in socially harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a
person from going on to murder or rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is
a far less effective means of protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most
prisoners are freed after a time-often having become most dangerous than when they
entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences. In any case,
escape is always possible. And even within the confines of prison, a condemned
criminal may murder or rape a guard, a fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a
condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing additional
acts of crime. Since it is the only right to protect the innocent member of the society
from the most serious crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right.

Retribution

While the arguments from preventions and deterrence look to the future and attempt
to justify capital punishment by an appeal to the future harm it will avoid, the argument
from retribution looks to the past and tries to justify capital punishment as the right
response to the wrong that has been done. Granted that society would be unjustified in
taking a person's life in punishment for any trivial crime, capital punishment is just
retribution for the greatest crimes. If one person has killed another, it is only fir that he
give his own life in return. Kidnapping and rape are also very wrong that the person who
commits these acts deserves the greatest penalty, death. Justice demands that each
individual be treated by others and by society as he deserves. The person who does
good act ought to be rewarded with good, and the person who does evil ought to suffer
evil-each in proportion to the good or evil done. The conception of justice implicit in
this argument has traditionally been illustrated by the figure of a blindfold woman
holding a set of balance scales. The woman is blindfolded so that she cannot recognize
her friends and enemies and award the former more good and the latter more evil than
they deserve. The balance scale symbolizes the element of retribution, the notion that
good or evil are to be awarded in return to the good or evil he has done. Applied to
punishment, this means that the punishment should fit the crime that the evil inflicted
upon the condemned criminal should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has
done. Since the only penalty bad enough to equal the greatest crime is death, and since
justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution for his past misdeeds, and since
it is right to do what justice requires, capital punishment or death penalty is sometimes
right.

Self-Defense

Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is sometimes an exercise of society's

right to self defense. Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life
of another, there are exceptional cases where this is morally justified, A person
has right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life or limb. Society, like
the individual, has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is threatened.
Now a murderer attacks not only his individual victim, but the society itself. Since
society is constituted by aggregate of individuals, to kill one or more individual is
already to begin to exterminate the society. Moreover, certain laws, such as the law
prohibiting murder, are necessary if any collections of individuals are to live together in
organized society. Hence, to break those laws that alone make the existence of society
possible is to threaten that society with death. Capital punishment is sometimes right
because it is right for society to exercise its self defense, and in extreme cases capital
punishment or death penalty does not defend the society from the attacks of a criminal
that threaten its very existence.
ARGUMENTS AGAINTS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Any serious moral problem is two-sided. If all or most of the relevant considerations are
on one side of the fence, everyone knows where the right course of action lies and there
is no real moral problem. In the case of every live moral issue, like that of capital
punishment, there is room for sincere and persistent disagreement because plausible
arguments on one side can be met with equally plausible argument on the other side of
the issue. Having surveyed the arguments in support of capital punishment, let us look
at the arguments of those who insist that capital punishment is always wrong, that it is
never right to execute the condemned criminal no matter how evil his crime.

The Moral Law

Capital punishment is always wrong because it is always a violation of moral laws. The
moral law consists of those rules that specify which kinds of acts are morally right and
which kinds are morally wrong. Historically, it has been thought of in various ways. In
the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral law is usually taken to be the set of commands
issued by God, whether limited to the Ten Commandments or including the many
mandates inscribed in the book of the bible. Rationalistic philosopher have tended to
ignore or reject revelation and think of moral laws as self-evident truths about right and
wrong discoverable by the natural light of human reason. However the moral law may
be conceived, it is usually presumed to forbid killing, to prohibit the intentional killing of
human being. Since the moral law declares that killing a human being is always wrong
and since the act of capital punishment is obviously an act of killing a human being,
capital punishment or death penalty is always wrong.

Monstrous Harm

Capital punishment or the death penalty is always wrong because it is always wrong to
do monstrous harm. Although lesser evils may be outweighed by greater goods, there
are some acts that do such great harm that under no circumstances could they be
morally justified. The Nazi extermination of million of Jews inflicted such monstrous
harm upon these innocent people that no real or imagined benefits to humanity could
overweigh its wrongness. On a lesser scale, capital punishment also does almost
indescribable harm. By definition, it deprives its victim of his every life. The loss of a
human life is the greatest of evil because life is the most precious of all human goods.
Not only is life the necessary condition of any other good at all, it is intrinsically good to
the highest degree. That we prize life above all other things is shown by the way we
cling to life and resist death even when everything else seems lost.

In addition to the obvious harm of inflicting death, capital punishment causes cruel and
inhuman suffering. It may be that the moment of death is almost painless, although
this is not always so. Still, the period of awaiting execution is one of the most unrelieved
tortures. With few if any interesting activities to distract the condemned prisoner, there
is little to think about but impending doom. Under these conditions, the fear of death,
the deepest and most terrifying of all the fears natural to the human psyche, results in a
condition anxiety approaching constant anguish.

Unnecessary Evil

Some evils are morally justified because they are necessary. Under duress of
circumstances, it may be necessary to do evil because that is the only possible way to
avoid some greater evil. The butchering of cattle, sheep and swine may be justified by
the fact that this is only way of sustaining the human population. Unfortunate as it is
that any animal need die, it is less bad that the brute animals perish than that human
beings starve to death. This line of argument does not justify hunting wild animals for
mere pleasure, of course, for hunting is an necessary evil. Only necessary evils, only
those that must be done in order to prevent some worse calamity, are morally right.
Now it may be argued that the execution of criminals, like the killing of cattle, is
necessary evil. The suffering and death inflicted by capital punishment, evil as they are,
are justified by the fact that the death penalty is the only effective means of protecting
society from the even greater evils of murder, rape and kidnapping. But this is not so.
Capital punishment is not necessary because there is another equally effective and less
undesirable means of dealing with crime. Life imprisonment is just as effective as
capital punishment in preventing and deterring crime. The condemned criminal cannot
continue his evil actions under close supervision, and the fear of life imprisonment will
deter potential criminal from doing wrong. Moreover, life imprisonment is a lesser evil
than capital punishment. Admittedly, it inflicts loss of freedom, personal humiliation
and extreme boredom upon the criminal. But suffering is required by the very nature
and purpose of punishment, and these evils are less cruel than death and the agony of
awaiting death. Since the death penalty is an unnecessary evil and it is always wrong to
do unnecessary evil, capital punishment is always wrong.

Irremediability

Capital punishment is wrong because it is irremediable; there is no remedy for the act
of execution. Unfortunately, there re occasion when even the sternest advocate of
harsh punishment deeply desire some remedy, for innocent persons are occasionally
condemned to death. Such judicial errors do not take place often, or at least are not
often detected, but when they do occur, we rebel at this gratuitous loss of innocent life
and yearn for some remedy. Not all punishment are beyond remedy. If someone is
fined by the court as a penalty for alleged wrongdoing, his money can be restored to
him if it is subsequently discovered that he is innocent. If a person's innocence is
established after he has spent several years in prison, restitution is not possible. There
is no way in which society can give back to someone wrongly condemned those lost
years of his life or undo the suffering he has lived through. Still, some compensation is
possible. Society can give its innocent victim a considerable sum of money to repay
him, in part at least, for what he has suffered at its hand. It would be naively
sentimental to pretend that any compensation would adequately balance the harm
inflicted upon the person unjustly condemned to imprisonment, but some partial and
imperfect remedy is available for any such miscarriage of justice. In the case of capital
punishment, no remedy of any kind is available to make up in the slightest degree for
the incalculable evil done by taking the life of an innocent human being. Neither
restitution nor compensation is possible, for there is no way in which society can give a
person's life back to him and no way to do good to someone who is dead and gone.
Since the possibility of error can never be eradicated from any human judicial
procedure, irremediable penalties are always wrong. Since capital punishment is an
irremediable judicial penalty, it is always wrong.

On the Abolition of the Death Penalty

The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing
the death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of
human person and human rights. Article II, Section11 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states:

"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights".

The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the
Philippines had ratified, guarantees that every human being has the inherent right to
life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
The Congress of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing
the death sentence with the motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the
commission of heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid statute. Statistics,
however, show that the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized.
Despite the enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts,
ore heinous crimes have been committed. From January to October 1999, the reported
cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute, have
substantially increased. Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his
second thoughts on the imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life
imprisonment the death sentence of prisoners in Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083,
introduced by Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by
Representative Roan L. Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act No. 7659.
Indeed, the Philippines, known as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the
death penalty law, has returned to the ancient era of Lex Taliones -" life for a life, tooth
for a tooth" a system blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice.
Pope John Paul II, in his "Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25
March 1995, said that modern society now has all the means of effectively suppressing
all crimes by rendering harmless without definitely denying them the chance to reform.
Moreover, the concept of heinous crimes is now limited to grievous offenses like
genocide or international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in danger.
The Commission on Human Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and
the execution of the first death sentence of Leo Echegaray, recommended to the
Philippine Senate to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights aiming the Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the
abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and
progressive development of human rights. Criminality can be fought with sincere and
effective law enforcement and impartial administration of justice. The said Protocol has
already been ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and territories. It is
about time that the Philippines join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate death
penalty in local statutes. The Commission on Human Rights issues this Human Rights
Advisory addressed to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines
for their appropriate action and all the person who value the dignity of the human
person and the preservation and sanctity of life.

THE PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Does the State have the right and authority to impose the capital punishment and put a
criminal to death? Advocates of human rights oppose capital punishment and say it is
cruel, inhuman, uncivilized and inconsistent with reason. The constitution of the
Philippines has abolished capital punishment but does not prohibit Congress to impose
death penalty for the heinous crime. Today our legislators have yet to define and rule
on what constitutes a heinous crime.

Henry Davis, theologian support the view: God has given to the State the right over life
and death as he has given to everyman the right of self-defense against aggression.
This moral power of the State has been universally acknowledge in Christian tradition.
It is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus 22:18); it
was recognized in the Roman Polity by Paul (Romans 13:4); for he (the prince) is God's
minister to them for good. But if they do that which is evil; fear; for the beareth not the
sword in vain

He therefore declared that every person has the right to live without unjust molestation
from the others. Capital punishment is therefore unnecessary for peace and security of
life and property. In his thinking capital punishment is deterrent so that citizen may live
and go about their activities with our molestation. Nonetheless he allows capital
punishment under the following conditions:
1. 1 The criminal is given due process in the court
2. The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible
punishment.
3. The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt
Capital Punishment or Death Penalty is a destructive action which needs a special
justification, a special pleading. Capital punishment should never be compared with
surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the extinction of life.
Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to
justify. Such that capital punishment for it directly destroy the life of a person,
preventing him to make amends and to change his life. Indeed, it is presumed that the
State has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.

Bernard Haring suggest that crimes re the result of socio environmental conditions. He
declares as his personal conviction that the State has no right to uphold the death
penalty unless it has done all in time power to give better education and to care for a
more just and humane environment he notes.

Recapituation: there are two probable opinions with Christianity and within the
Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. This author favor to the reimposition of
death penalty for heinous crimes and for as long as the conditions providing for a just
and honest trials of criminals are observed strictly Philippines situation indicates that
life imprisonment is not a very promising alternative.

Newspaper Clip: Views on Reimposition Of Death Penalty

The Republic Act No. 7659 also known as the Death Penalty Act has undergone
different analysis and interpretations thus its implementation says will decrease the
Philippines crime rate, but it remains unquestionable.

Death Penalty for Graft and Corruption

DELICADEZA: A combination of delicadeza and public opinion led to the withdrawal of

Zoe Baird, one of America's ablest women lawyers, as President Clinton's nominee for
attorney general. She was the first woman ever to be nominated for the position.
Reason for withdrawal: She had hired a Peruvian couple who were illegal immigrants. In
the Philippines, delicadeza and public opinion cannot pry everyone who has already
been nominated for a high position out of a job especially if he has already been
installed. We seek refuge behind the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
This theory leaves no room for either public opinion or delicadeza. We are only fouled
weather democrats.

Death Penalty for Drugs

According to reports in the regional press, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary

Organization has urged all ASEAN member states to impose the death penalty for drug
trafficking. At a recent meeting in Kuala, Lumpur, delegates from five member states,
including the Philippines, agreed that trafficking in over 15 grams of heroin or morphine
should be made a capital offense.
Meriam Santiago said the number of crimes committed daily rose
to 34.3 percent in 1990, during which there were 5,193 index crimes reported
representing what she called a significant increase in crime against property, life and
chastity.
as an immigration commissioner, I was privy to intelligence reports on the activities of
global criminal syndicates, which use the Philippines as the transhipment centers for
drugs in Asia. Only the death penalty will deter the syndicate.

She pointed out that the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, and from that
time, police reports show that an average of two people is killed daily.

In Manila, from the time death penalty was abolished, the criminality rate rose by
more than 100 percent. she said. Bengson a practicing lawyer, said
legislator as representatives of the people should now take heed of their constituents'
voice. He noted that even among churchmen, there is division on weather death
penalty is moral.
In the face of such doubt, the people's voice should be the final arbiter, he said.

He noted the near unanimity of law enforcers, prosecutors, justices, and local officials
on the necessity of reimposing the death penalty.

Letters to newspaper editors and phoned-in comments on public affairs radio and
television shows popular support for the death penalty, Bengson added.

He also contested arguments that the state will be just like the criminals if it puts
murderers to death.

A Government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible criminals to
death will find its citizens at the mercy of criminals who find nothing wrong with
putting innocent people to death, he said.

He added that outlawing or banning the death penalty will be tantamount to giving the
wrong signals to criminal elements.

We'll be saying to them: You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be
assured that your own life is safe because we don't allow the death penalty, he said.
1. Judge Tirso Velasco, presiding judge of the Quezon City
Regional Trial Court Branch 88, said his colleagues acknowledge the need for
restoration of the death penalty. 1 The death penalty should be
implemented only according to the gravity of the crime against the person.
2. The death penalty will prevent more heinous crime.
3 The reimposition of the death penalty will comply with the biblical
principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Judge
Maximino Asuncion of RTC Branch 104 said that while he was not sure that the death
penalty will reduce incidence of crime, a majority clamors its reimposition.
Everybody should have their own share of the law, he said
The 1986 Constitution abolished the death penalty, but allowed Congress to reimpose
it on certain heinous crimes.
Fourteen of fifteen justices of the Supreme Court, support the
reimposition of the death penalty.
The association of Governors, City and Town Mayors and Councilors also favor the
restoration of capital punishment.
A 20,000- strong student organization threatened not to vote and
campaign against a Senator who oppose the death penalty if they seek re-election.
When deposed President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, he
ordered a notorious Chinese Drug pusher executed by musketry under the dangerous
drugs law. The execution sent shock waves down drug pushing, addiction and illegal
importation of drugs for their sale was down to a trickle. The penalty
for peddling drug is death in at least six Asian countries. Malaysia showed the way on
July 7, 1985. Death to drug dealers is mandatory in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and
Singapore. The People's Republic of China has many times reported execution of drug
pusher. In the United States which is made up of 50 states,
only 11 states have abolished capital punishment namely Kansas, North Dakota,
Minnesota, Iowa, Winconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, New York, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island and Maine. Prof. Ed Garcia, principal author of
the provision abolishing the death penalty in the 1987 Constitution, cites an 1989
Amnesty International Study of the use of the death penalty in the Philippines which
presents case of studies of at least eight instances where judicial mistakes had resulted
in the death penalty being imposed on innocent individuals and one case in 1958 where
it was carried out and blameless farmer's life snuffled out.
Another useful statistics of study made on the death penalty in the Philippines
from 1946-1976 showed that of 63 persons on whom the death penalty was imposed
only three came from so called middle class family background while the rest were from
what are referred to as the disadvantages sector. August 12,
1991 Senators who favor the return of the death penalty are confident they have
enough vote to pass the proposal the next day, but their pro-life colleagues are about to
give up the fight.
Summary

This study determined the debates on death penalty referring to moral and judicial
control under the Philippine Government. It further elaborated on the disputes of
opinions and facts regarding the unresolved issue rooming continuously to present
times.

Though, it specifically answers the following questions:

1. 1 What are the revised penal laws indicated for the said
capital punishment issue?
2. What are the biblical oaths in accordance to death penalty offenses?
3. What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?
4. What are the arguments for capital punishment and arguments against capital
punishment?
Conclusions

Significant and relevant yet argumentative views showed further concerns with the
reimposition of capital punishment. Vehement forms of idealistic battles pertaining to
purposive biblical, theoretical, judicial and moral facts give it's way to the complication
and inconsistencies to which laws governing the country are oftenly refined.

Large numbers of politicians were merely in approvement with the reimposition as of

the times heinous crimes were observed frequently during their terms of service and
left death penalty as the only option for the hinderance of such pandemonium in the
society and evaluations by other countries as basis for the inactment.

Abolition of Republic Act No. 7659 was much praised because it was proven that capital
punishment is not always succeeding in preventing heinous crimes and will only deprive
the country's capability and irredibility towards authenticity and fairness in judgement.
Fundamental right of every human being to life and dignity of human person and
preservation and sanctity of life were highly and truly valued.